PCC in leasehold space [court claim started against MC & PPC]

Coupon-mad

I agree.  Wait for the NTK first then appeal as driver.  Stops them just being able to blame a rookie ticketer and means you'd also be able to inject to them getting your DVLA data.

h2g2

Particulars of claim are in. They were drafted by our favourite Mr J. Yamba, and they are rather spicy.

I shan't share them in their entirety here, but some headlines are:

- Because the managing agent have persistently referred to the charges as "fines", we are too. If PCM go back and say they're contractual charges we reply with "but your principle says they are fines".

- Because both the managing agent and PCM have been shown copies of the lease proving ownership of the land and have persisted on pushing PCN charges on us anyway (this is more in relation to the other claimants who joined me) we're alleging that these PCNs are, in fact, fraudulent - something I know you folks here tend to advise against.

- Claims for harassment regarding debt collectors letters for money that cannot legally be owed.

- A claim of aggravated harassment for one resident joining me, who got agents from the debt collectors knock on her door(!) and also got misogynistic abuse in a response to a PCN appeal. I, personally, haven't seen that, so I don't know if that was an appeal to PCM or the MA although no doubt I'll find out when I see the actual evidence bundle.

The total claim is for over £6000 between four of us.

Bazarius

h2g2 said:

Particulars of claim are in. They were drafted by our favourite Mr J. Yamba, and they are rather spicy.

I shan't share them in their entirety here, but some headlines are:

- Because the managing agent have persistently referred to the charges as "fines", we are too. If PCM go back and say they're contractual charges we reply with "but your principle says they are fines".

- Because both the managing agent and PCM have been shown copies of the lease proving ownership of the land and have persisted on pushing PCN charges on us anyway (this is more in relation to the other claimants who joined me) we're alleging that these PCNs are, in fact, fraudulent - something I know you folks here tend to advise against.

- Claims for harassment regarding debt collectors letters for money that cannot legally be owed.

- A claim of aggravated harassment for one resident joining me, who got agents from the debt collectors knock on her door(!) and also got misogynistic abuse in a response to a PCN appeal. I, personally, haven't seen that, so I don't know if that was an appeal to PCM or the MA although no doubt I'll find out when I see the actual evidence bundle.

The total claim is for over £6000 between four of us.

That’s good . £1500 is a reasonable level as it was deemed entirely reasonable  by the Judge in the case between VCS v Ferguson . 

I expect the Defendant will counterclaim for the outstanding PCNs. 

Good luck 

Coupon-mad

h2g2 said:

Background January 2024

No charges have yet been issued to me, although other residents have complained about receiving charges despite displaying the issued permits. (Enforcement only started on January 8th, and my car has been in a garage being worked on for that time.)

However: I do want to get this resolved, ideally without having to defend an unfair charge in court, and the risk (however small) of a loss there. It would be better for all parties for this to be solved out of court, or - if a judge must rule on it - before I risk getting any parking charges issued to me.

Due to regular complaints from residents to the management company about unauthorized cars occupying their parking spaces (including, it seems, non-residents tailgating residents onto the estate and parking in any free space they can find) the management company seems to have decided to employ Parking Control Management Ltd (PCM) to enforce parking in the car park.

Instigating the PCC

All the residents received hand delivered letters with a permit to display, indicating which numbered bay we were entitled to, and a letter explaining that all cars must be parked wholly within a marked bay (although the bays are short and many medium sized cars have to overhang the front of the bay by ~1 inch - no-one has ever complained about that) and displaying a valid permit. It says photocopied, damaged or faded permits are not valid, and replacement permits cost £20 to issue. It says any breach of these terms will result in a £100 charge, with the usual terms and conditions.

These came accompanied with a letter from the management company saying they expected us to comply with this, and would not get involved in any disputes between the residents and PCM.

My current stance (which I am not 100% sure about)

However: I believe that my leasehold agreement grants me the unfettered right to park without a permit and that, were I to be charged, I would have primacy of contract. As far as I am aware an alteration on the leasehold would be required to allow permitting to be made a requirement under the given terms. What complicates this is that there is a term in the leasehold agreement requiring that I do not allow any easements or encroachments on the leasehold agreement, which includes the car park. I worry that by displaying the permit I could end up creating an easement by which I accept the terms PCM Ltd have laid out on me, including the requirement to pay whatever they decide to charge for a replacement permit (I imagine they will claim to be able to revise the cost of a replacement permit as and when they feel necessary).

I further believe that PCM are essentially offering the right to park in my space to anyone who can gain access for £100 per day. (Possibly a good deal if you have a very valuable car and would rather park it somewhere gated and away from the eyes of potential thieves - someone with a McLaren F1 did, in fact, sneak in and leave their car in someone's bay for a week rather than pay parking at the nearby train station with its publicly accessible car park). However, I have not consented to this offer and if I am charged I believe I would have had no consideration, as the right to park was already afforded to me by the leasehold agreement.

What I have done so far

I have written to the freeholder, as required under clause 3.7, to tell them I believe this is an attempted encroachment. So far I have not heard back yet, although they did receive my letter less than a week ago, so I would not have expected to hear back yet.

I also wrote to the management company saying:

 > "The title to my property includes my parking space, which I therefore have the right to quiet enjoyment of, notwithstanding any restrictions placed in the leasehold. As far as I can tell the leasehold agreement only requires that I use the parking space to keep a car or motorbike with up-to-date road tax. Would you be able to point out which part of the leasehold allows a permitting system to be introduced?"

They responded:

>  "Your lease does allow you to quiet enjoyment of your parking space, but unfortunately a lot of residents aren’t allowed this, due to other residents and / or their visitors parking in their parking spaces and therefore introducing parking control was the only option to allow all owners the quiet enjoyment of their space as per the lease."

which, as far as I can tell, indicates they don't understand what "quiet enjoyment" actually means and doesn't answer my question. I replied again making specific reference to clauses in the leasehold agreement that I believed they were in breach of and have yet to hear back.

I have made it clear as well that while I will display the permit as required that I do not believe it necessary and I am only doing it to avoid unnecessary trouble with PCM until the situation is resolved. And that I do intend to stop displaying it if it cannot be established that I am required to, due to the clause requiring me not to allow an easement to be created.

Going forward
This means I would like to find a way forward to find out either that a) the management company / freeholder does, in fact have the right to impose permitting or b) that I can reliably insist that they stop.

Some supporting material:

SUMMARY:
A & B are extracts from the letter from PCM explaining the rules of the parking.
C-G: Extracts from the leasehold agreement.
C: Definitions of terms
Tenants Covenants, including restrictions on the parking space, a requirement not to allow any encroachment nor easement on the parking space, and to comply with reasonable regulations set out by the landlord and management company.
E: Regulations to be observed by the Tenant, requiring me to comply with any "access requirements" set out by the management company.
F: Landlord's Covenants, outlining the right to quiet enjoyment.
G: The management company's rights to employ staff, and to regulate.
H-I: The installed signage (which may or may not be relevant.)

A: Letter from PCM explaining the permitting requirements:


B: Letter from PCM with advice about signage and charges.


C: Leasehold fragment - definitions of car park space, common parts, demised premises, and estate:



Relevant Tenants Covenants from the Leasehold agreement, including restrictions on the parking space:




E: From the Fourth Schedule: Regulations to be observed by the Tenant


F: From the Landlord's Covenants (which also applies to the Management Company):


G: From Schedule 3, the Management Company covenants with the Tenant and observe and perform:




I: Sign installed within car park:

Update 5th March 2025

Particulars of claim are in. They were drafted by our favourite Mr J. Yamba, and they are rather spicy.

I shan't share them in their entirety here, but some headlines are:

- Because the managing agent have persistently referred to the charges as "fines", we are too. If PCM go back and say they're contractual charges we reply with "but your principle says they are fines".

- Because both the managing agent and PCM have been shown copies of the lease proving ownership of the land and have persisted on pushing PCN charges on us anyway (this is more in relation to the other claimants who joined me) we're alleging that these PCNs are, in fact, fraudulent - something I know you folks here tend to advise against.

- Claims for harassment regarding debt collectors letters for money that cannot legally be owed.

- A claim of aggravated harassment for one resident joining me, who got agents from the debt collectors knock on her door(!) and also got misogynistic abuse in a response to a PCN appeal. I, personally, haven't seen that, so I don't know if that was an appeal to PCM or the MA although no doubt I'll find out when I see the actual evidence bundle.

The total claim is for over £6000 between four of us.

This is great news!

The popcorn is out and it would be brilliant (if you win at a hearing) if the 4 of you - or Contestor Legal - can see fit to pay for a transcript of the hearing and/or the judgment.

Could be useful for others like you!